[The Lahore Conspiracy Case (LCC) prisoners had suspended
their hunger strike on the assurance that the Government of India was
considering the Jail Committee Report and that the jail reforms would be
punished for participating in the hunger strike. After the hunger strike was
suspended, the GOI, however, resorted to delaying tactics. Disciplinary acting
was also taken against hunger strikers in U.P. and Punjab jails (other than LCC
prisoners). It was in this connection that Bhagat Singh wrote this letter to the
GOI, which was short of a notice-cum-ultimatum for resuming the hunger strike.]

The Home Member,
The Govt. of India
Delhi

Through
The Special Magistrate,
Lahore Conspiracy Case,
Lahore

SIR,

With reference to our telegram dated 20th Jan. 1930, reading as
follows, we have not been given any reply.

Home Member Government. Delhi Under trials, Lahore Conspiracy Case and other
Political Prisoners suspended hunger-strike on the assurance that the India
Govt. was considering Provincial Jail Committee's reports. All Government
Conference over. No action yet taken. As vindictive treatment to political
prisoners still continues, we request we be informed within a week final Govt.
decision. Lahore Conspiracy Case under trials.

As briefly stated in the above telegram, we beg to bring to your kind notice
that the Lahore Conspiracy Case under trials and several other political
prisoners confined in Punjab jails suspended hunger strike on the assurance
given by the members of the Punjab Jail Enquiry Committee that the question of
the treatment of political prisoners was going to be finally settled to our
satisfaction within a very short period. Further, after the death of our great
martyr Jatindra Nath Das, the matter was taken up in the Legislative Assembly
and the same assurance was given publicly by Sir James Crerar. It was then
pronounced that there has been a change of heart and the question of the
treatment of political prisoners was receiving the utmost sympathy of the
government. Such political prisoners who were still on hunger strike in jails of
the different parts of the country then suspended their hunger strike on the
request being made to this effect in an AICC resolution passed in view of the
said assurance and the critical condition of some of the prisoners.

Since then all the local governments have submitted their reports. A meeting
of Inspectors- General of Prisons of different provinces has been held at
Lucknow and the deliberations of the All-India Govt. Conference have been
concluded at Delhi. The All-India Conference was held in the month of Dec. last.
Over not carried into effect any final recommendations. By such dilatory
attitude of the government we no less than the general public have begun to fear
that perhaps the question has been shelved. Our apprehensions have been
strengthened by the vindictive treatment meted out to hunger strikers and other
political prisoners during the last four months. It is very difficult for us to
know the details of the hardships to which the political prisoners are being
subjected. Still the little information that has trickled out of the four walls
of the jails in sufficient to furnish us with glaring instances. We give below a
few such instances which we cannot but feel, are not in conformity with the
govt. assurance.

(1) Sj. B.K. Banerji, undergoing 5 years imprisonment in connection with
Dakshineshwar Bomb Case in Lahore Central Jail, joined the hunger strike last
year. Now as a punishment for the same, for each day of his period of hunger
strike, two days of the remission so far earned by him have been forfeited.
Under usual circumstances his release was due in Dec. last, but it will be
delayed by full four months. In the same Jail similar punishment has been
awarded to Baba Sohan Singh, an old man of about seventy, now undergoing his
sentence of life transportation in connection with the (first) Lahore Conspiracy
Case. Besides, among others, Sardar Gopal Singh confined in Mianwali Jail,
Master Mota Singh confined in Rawalpindi Jail have also been awarded vindictive
punishments for joining the general hunger strike. In most of these cases the
periods of imprisonment have been enhanced while some of them have been removed
from the Special class.

(2) For the same offence, i.e. joining the general hunger strike, Messrs.
Sachindra Nath Sanyal, Ram Kishan Khattri and Suresh Chandra Bhattacharya,
confined in Agra Central Jail, Raj Kumar Sinha, Sachindra Nath Bukshi, Manmath
Nath Gupta and several other Kakori case prisoners have been severely punished.
It is reliably learnt that Mr. Sanyal was given bar-fetters and solitary
cell-confinement and as a consequence there has been a break-down in his health.
His weight has gone down by eighteen pounds. Mr. Bhattacharya is reported to be
suffering from tuberculosis. The three Bareilly Jail prisoners also have been
punished. It is learnt that all their privileges have been withdrawn. Even their
usual rights of interviewing with relations and communication with them were
forfeited. They have all been considerably reduced in their weights. Two press
statements have been issued in this connection in Sep. 1929 and Jan. 1930 by
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

(3) After the passing of the AICC resolution regarding hunger strike, the
copies of the same, which were sent to different political prisoners, were
withheld by the jail authorities. Further, the govt. refused a Congress
deputation to meet the prisoners in this respect.

(4) The Lahore Conspiracy Case under trials were assaulted brutally on 23rd
and 24th Oct., 1929, by orders of high police officials. Full details have
appeared in the press. The copy of the statement of the one of us recorded by
the Special Magistrate, Pt. Shri Krishan, has been duly forwarded to you in a
communication dated 16th Dec., 1929 Neither the Punjab Government nor the Govt.
of India felt it necessary to reply or even acknowledge receipt of our
communication praying for an enquiry. While, on the other hand, local government
has felt the imperative necessity of prosecuting us in connection with the very
same incident for offering "violent" resistance".

(5) In the last week of Dec. 1929, Sj. Kiran Chandra Das and eight others
confined in the Lahore Borstal Jail, when being taken to and produced in the
Magistrate's Court, were found handcuffed and chained together in flagrant
breach of the unanimous recommendations of the Punjab Jail Enquiry Committee and
also of Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab. It is further noteworthy that
these prisoners were under trials, changed for a bailable offence. A long
statement issued by Dr. Mohd. Aslam, Lala Duni Chand of Lahore and Lala Duni
Chand of Ambala in this connection was published in Tribune.

When we learnt these and other sufferings of the political prisoners we
refrained from resuming our hunger strike, though we were much grieved as we
thought that the matter was going to be finally settled at an early date, but in
the light of the above instances, are we now to believe that the untold
sufferings of the hunger strikers and the supreme sacrifice made by Jatin Das
have all been in vain? Are we to understand that the govt. gave its assurance
only to check the growing tide of public agitation and to avert a crisis? You
will agree with us if we say that we have waited patiently for a sufficiently
reasonable period of time. But we cannot wait indefinitely. The government, buy
its dilatory attitude and the continuation of vindictive treatment to political
prisoners, has left us no other option but to resume the struggle. We realize
that to go on hunger strike and to carry it on is no easy task. But let us at
the same time point out that Indiacan produce many more Jatins and Wagias, Ran
Rakshas and Bhan Singhs. (The last two named laid down their lives in the
Andamans in 1917 - the first breathed his last after 63 days of hunger strike
while the other died the death of a great hero after silently undergoing in
human tortures for full six months.)

Enough has been said by us and the members of the public (inquiry committee)
in justification of the better treatment of political prisoners and it is
unnecessary here to repeat the same. We would however like to say a few words as
regards the inclusion of motive as the basis and the most important factor in
the matter of classification. Great fuss has been created on the question of
criteria of classification. We find that motive has altogether been excluded so
far from the criteria suggested by different provincial governments This is
really strange attitude. It is through motive alone that the real value of any
action can be decided. Are we to understand that the Government is unable to
distinguish between a robber who robs and kills his victim and a Kharag Bahadur
who kills a villain and saves the honour of a young lady and redeems society of
a most licentious parasite? Are both to be treated as two men belonging to the
same category? Is there no difference between two men who commit the same
offence, one guided buy selfish motive and the other by a selfless one?
Similarly, is there no difference between a common murderer and a political
worker, even if the latter resorts to violence? Does not his selflessness
elevate his place from amongst those of ordinary criminals? In these
circumstances we think that motive should be held as the most important factor
in the criteria for classification.

Last year, in the beginning of our hunger strike, when public leaders
including Dr. Gopi Chand and Lala Duni Chand of Ambala - the last named being
one of the signatories to the Punjab Jail Enquiry Committee Report - approached
us to discuss the same thing and when they told us that the government
considered to treat the political prisoners convicted of offences of violent
nature as Special class prisoners, then by way of compromise we agreed to the
proposal to the extent of excluding those actually charged with murder. But,
Later on, the discussion took a different turn and the communiqué containing the
terms of reference for the Punjab Jail Enquiry Committee was so worded that the
question of motive seemed to be altogether excluded, and the classification was
based on two thing:

(1) Nature of Offence; and

(2) Social Status of "Offender".

These criteria, instead of solving the problem, made it all the more
complicated.

We could understand two classes amongst the political prisoners, those
charged for non-violent offences and those charged for violent offences. But
then creeps in the question of social status in the report of the Punjab Jail
Enquiry Committee. As Chaudhary Afzal Haque has pointed out, and rightly too, in
his note of dissent to this report, what will be the fate of those political
workers who have been reduced to pauper's conditions due to their honorary
services in the cause of freedom? Are they to be left at the mercy of a
magistrate who will away try to prove the bonafide of his loyalty by classifying
everyone as an ordinary convict? Or, is it expected that a non-cooperator will
stretch his hand before the people against whom he is fighting as an opponent,
begging for better treatment in jail? Is this the way of removing the causes of
dissatisfaction, or rather intensifying them? It might be argued that people
living in property outside the jails, should not expect luxuries inside the
prison when they are detained for the purpose of punishment. But, are the
reforms that are demanded, of a nature of luxury? Are they not the bare
necessities of life, according to the most moderate standard of living? Inspite
of all the facilities that can possibly be demanded, jail will ever remain a
jail. The prison in itself does not contain and can never contain any magnetic
power to attract the people from outside. Nobody will commit offences simply to
come to jail. Moreover, may we venture to say that it is a very poor argument on
the part of any government to say that its citizens have been driven to such
extreme destitution that their standard of living has fallen even lower than
that of jails? Does not such an argument cut at the very root of that
government's right of existence? Anyhow, we are not concerned with that at
present. What we want to say is that the best way to remove the prevailing
dissatisfaction would be to classify the political prisoners as such into a
separate class which may further be subdivided, if need be, into two classes -
one for those convicted of nonviolent offences and the other for persons whose
offences include violence. In that case motive will become one of the deciding
factors. To say that motive cannot be ascertained in political cases is
hypocritical assertion. What is it that today informs the jail authorities to
deprive the 'political' even of the ordinary privileges? What it is that
deprives them of the special grades or 'nambardaries', etc.? What does make the
authorities to keep them aloof and separated from all other convicts? The same
thing can help in the classification also.

As for the special demands, we have already stated them in full in our
memorandum to the Punjab Jail Enquiry Committee. We would however particularly
emphasize that no political prisoner, whatever his offence may be, should be
given any hard and undignified labour for which he may not feel aptitude. All of
them, confined in one jail, should be kept together in the same ward. At least
one standard daily newspaper in vernacular or English should be given to them.
Full and proper facilities for study should be granted. Lastly, they should be
allowed to supplement their expenses for diet and clothing from their private
sources.

We still hope that the government will carry into effect without further
delay its promise made to us and to the public, so that there may not be another
occasion for resuming the hunger strike. Unless and until we find a definite
move on the part of the government to redeem its promise in the course of the
next seven days, we shall be forced to resume the hunger strike.